Tech differences in ST XI - blame the Xindi? The Vulcans?
- Thread starter Cadet49
- Start date
I couldn't disagree more. I think having the entirety of prior Trek canon as a prequel to this film (both Enterprise before and the Spock/Nero alternate future of TNG/DS9/VOY) was a brilliant idea.
Really, the only complaints are by those who obsess to a ridiculous degree over unimportant minutae ("Delta Vega!" "Timelines!" "They made the ship bigger!"
). The rest of us see the changes and little plotholes, but just like with prior Star Treks, we're too busy enjoying ourselves to care
.
Don't curse it into existence!
The last thing we need is another Space Nazi episode.
I actually agree with your disagreement.
Strangely I would prefer one Trek rather than a fractured franchise, so I guess if the writers did anything "right", that was it. Its just a shame the movie didn't manage to do that heritage justice, except in superficial ways, in my view.Really, the only complaints are by those who obsess to a ridiculous degree over unimportant minutae ("Delta Vega!" "Timelines!" "They made the ship bigger!"
That would be minutiae like ignoring and mocking traditional ST values and beliefs? Pike pays lip service to peacekeeping and humanitarian goals but they are then promptly forgotten or flouted. That's worse than preachy, that's hypocrisy. Forget the fact the movie isn't really "about" anything.
Sure, there does seem to be a fair bit of complaining about trivia but I don't get the feeling most people who object to such things think they substantially damage the film.
I think you will find the "little plotholes" fell into the plot-canyons!
... but just like with prior Star Treks, we're too busy enjoying ourselves to care
Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but no other ST managed to offend me, so there is at least one way in which this version is significantly different, YMMV.
I have some theories (off the top of my head) that could address many of the differences:
The Core: Narada's Arrival in 2233
When looking at this, since the Kelvin is Canon in both Prime (all prior Trek) and Alternate (Trek 2009) Realities, it is logical to assume that the Kelvin's destruction, and the encounter with the Narada, may have left a wealth of sensor scans and logs, perhaps leaving clues re: various technological advances.
For instance, those missiles? The Kevin's, and her shuttles, probably scanned them pretty closely throughout the encounter.
Most of the Kelvin's telemetry and sensor data would have been automatically been downloaded to the shuttles during the escape, and that's a lot of data on countless wavelengths, leaving a lot of potential for reverse engineering in Starfleet's labs.
So here we have a rich source of information which could subtly, between 2233 and 2255 (22 years), inform various technical changes.
Large, Industrial-looking Engineering (Trek 2009) vs. smaller, much more shielded and simple Engineering (TOS)
With the Kelvin as a model, it is clear that around the 2230s, Starfleet vessels were required to be large, and it was convention to expose all of the Engineering components to the Engineers for manual inspections and tweaking.
In the Prime reality, Starfleet probably worked to decrease the number of officers and crew on the ship, and to streamline ship's maintenance needs.
This led to ships being built smaller, with more panels to keep circuitry and equipment hidden, and maintained in a more automated fashion.
In the Alternate Reality, Starfleet probably scoured those log entries, and reverse engineered a great deal of technical data for things like Structural Integrity Fields, as well as other advances, but with less resources allocated to the ship's elegance and automation, leading to a larger Constitution-class ship, and a more industrial styled Engineering.
More to come ...
The Core: Narada's Arrival in 2233
When looking at this, since the Kelvin is Canon in both Prime (all prior Trek) and Alternate (Trek 2009) Realities, it is logical to assume that the Kelvin's destruction, and the encounter with the Narada, may have left a wealth of sensor scans and logs, perhaps leaving clues re: various technological advances.
For instance, those missiles? The Kevin's, and her shuttles, probably scanned them pretty closely throughout the encounter.
Most of the Kelvin's telemetry and sensor data would have been automatically been downloaded to the shuttles during the escape, and that's a lot of data on countless wavelengths, leaving a lot of potential for reverse engineering in Starfleet's labs.
So here we have a rich source of information which could subtly, between 2233 and 2255 (22 years), inform various technical changes.
Large, Industrial-looking Engineering (Trek 2009) vs. smaller, much more shielded and simple Engineering (TOS)
With the Kelvin as a model, it is clear that around the 2230s, Starfleet vessels were required to be large, and it was convention to expose all of the Engineering components to the Engineers for manual inspections and tweaking.
In the Prime reality, Starfleet probably worked to decrease the number of officers and crew on the ship, and to streamline ship's maintenance needs.
This led to ships being built smaller, with more panels to keep circuitry and equipment hidden, and maintained in a more automated fashion.
In the Alternate Reality, Starfleet probably scoured those log entries, and reverse engineered a great deal of technical data for things like Structural Integrity Fields, as well as other advances, but with less resources allocated to the ship's elegance and automation, leading to a larger Constitution-class ship, and a more industrial styled Engineering.
More to come ...
UFO said:
I didn't see any mockery of ST's values or beliefs. Is this about firing on the Narada at the end again?
While it wasn't a rehash of the fall of communism, or the Vietnam war and it didn't have a trite "save the whales" message, I thought the film was about Spock coming to terms with himself and Kirk finding a direction and living up to his potential - two things very relevant to the younger crowd the film was aimed at.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Coming to terms with himself how? He's presented as stuck up in the early part of the movie. Arrogant in the second part. So mentally disturbed in the third that he removes himself from duty (Shouldn't McCoy have been the one to do that?) and then shown to embrace revenge at the end. That doesn't seem like coming to terms with himself, it's tossing aside his Vulcan upbringing to take on the values that Kirk represents.
Kirk found that to be a leader you don't have to actually lead, just luck into everything and let Pike cover your ass.
Kirk found that to be a leader you don't have to actually lead, just luck into everything and let Pike cover your ass.
kkozoriz1,
Forgive me for butting in here, but Spock came to terms with him self, IMHO, like this:
- His arrogance/stuck up nature, as you put it, come from being essentially cold and without obvious emotion. The Spock of Classic Trek was often shown to imply Vulcan superiority, so this is true to character.
- When Vulcan is destroyed, and he has that confrontation with Kirk on the Bridge, then his father giving him advice, he allowed his human half to surface. He found some reconcilliation between Vulcan Logic, and Human Emotion.
As for Kirk:
- Kirk's leadership has always had an element of luck. This is true in life.
- He took the center seat, and gave orders. He took charge, and made decisions based on gut instincts about Nero. Something Kirk is know for from TOS.
- He progressed from being a punk, to taking command, his "best destiny".
- His journey was not about learning HOW to command, but learning that he SHOULD command.
- He led by showing his tactical instincts about a situation (telling Pike about the fact that Vulcan was being attacked), and displaying a willingness to take the initiative, and take the center seat (".. and no goddamn first officer to replace him."; "Yeah we do").
- He led by listening to, and working with, his crew (planning the finale attack and rescue with Spock, Chekov etc.), and providing the basic overall direction (get Pike of the ship, disable/steal the Black Hole device).
Forgive me for butting in here, but Spock came to terms with him self, IMHO, like this:
- His arrogance/stuck up nature, as you put it, come from being essentially cold and without obvious emotion. The Spock of Classic Trek was often shown to imply Vulcan superiority, so this is true to character.
- When Vulcan is destroyed, and he has that confrontation with Kirk on the Bridge, then his father giving him advice, he allowed his human half to surface. He found some reconcilliation between Vulcan Logic, and Human Emotion.
As for Kirk:
- Kirk's leadership has always had an element of luck. This is true in life.
- He took the center seat, and gave orders. He took charge, and made decisions based on gut instincts about Nero. Something Kirk is know for from TOS.
- He progressed from being a punk, to taking command, his "best destiny".
- His journey was not about learning HOW to command, but learning that he SHOULD command.
- He led by showing his tactical instincts about a situation (telling Pike about the fact that Vulcan was being attacked), and displaying a willingness to take the initiative, and take the center seat (".. and no goddamn first officer to replace him."; "Yeah we do").
- He led by listening to, and working with, his crew (planning the finale attack and rescue with Spock, Chekov etc.), and providing the basic overall direction (get Pike of the ship, disable/steal the Black Hole device).
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
What reconcilliation was that? That it's OK to kill a helpless enemy just to make yourself feel better? Even though Kirk mentioned that it could help bring peace between the Federation and the Romulans Spock chose to have Kirk deliver the coup de grace. He's sure embraced his human side. He's learned to enjoy killing.
99% of what got Kirk into the center seat was pure luck. McCoy just happened to smuggle him aboard. He just happened to come out of the sedative to hear the announcement. He just happened to be the only one who understood that "lightning storm in space" reference even though Pike wrote a paper about the Kevlin incident. He just happened to land on Delta Vega within walking distance of Spock's cave. Spock just happened to appear in time to save him. Spock just happened to know Scotty's transporter cheat. Nobody on the Enterprise followed Spocks order to arrest Kirk and let him goad Spock into attacking him so he could take command.
Shall I contimue? He didn't show leadership ability. He didn't show why he would be a good commander. He pretty much had everything handed to him or had the Acme brand safe fall on the other guy than himself.
And at the end of it Spock goes crawling back to ask to be First Officer. Everyone is so proud of Kirk. I just don't see why.
99% of what got Kirk into the center seat was pure luck. McCoy just happened to smuggle him aboard. He just happened to come out of the sedative to hear the announcement. He just happened to be the only one who understood that "lightning storm in space" reference even though Pike wrote a paper about the Kevlin incident. He just happened to land on Delta Vega within walking distance of Spock's cave. Spock just happened to appear in time to save him. Spock just happened to know Scotty's transporter cheat. Nobody on the Enterprise followed Spocks order to arrest Kirk and let him goad Spock into attacking him so he could take command.
Shall I contimue? He didn't show leadership ability. He didn't show why he would be a good commander. He pretty much had everything handed to him or had the Acme brand safe fall on the other guy than himself.
And at the end of it Spock goes crawling back to ask to be First Officer. Everyone is so proud of Kirk. I just don't see why.
Actually no, that's just one of at least three problems. Four, if you include the Spock/Uhura conflict of interest issue. To quote myself:
Traditionally the bad guys are supposed to be the ones doing bad things, not Star Fleet.
Its possible saving whales was trite even by the nineteen eighties and maybe it was a little ham-fisted, but the message was worthwhile, and whales still need saving so its still relevant.
Sure, not every ST movie must have a major message, but this last one could have done with a little substance in my view.You're suggesting the movie was a message to young people? Fascinating!
I believe Spock's stand-offish (in human eyes) nature was an important science fictional element which added interest to the character and more importantly insight into alternative ways of seeing things or behaving. I never for a moment thought of it, in a condescendingly homocentric way, as a "fault" he had to "come to terms with". If this is the end of a humanising process for Spock, Star Trek will be the poorer for it, I suggest.
As already mentioned by kkozoriz1, Kirk didn't so much find his direction, as have every man and his wookie setting him up for the command chair well before he had any right or ability to be there. Not to mention the whole Abramsverse bending over backwards to "correct itself", as if there is only one way things should turn out. That seems like the reverse of a motivational message for young people to me. More an escapist fantasy. Elements of that are fine, but the whole plot?
So there are a number of valid (non trivial) complaints against this movie that have not been successfully levelled at past incarnations. In other words, I believe this movie IS different to past "renovations" from a moral point of view (and not in a good way).
If you quote yourself, I'll quote myself too:
First movies suck, at some level, period. Everyone is entitled to their shitty little opinion, but I think "fans" who nitpick Star Trek to death and declare the franchise RUINED FOREVER, are unpleasable and just after "I told you so" points for future installments. "You see? You see? I knew it was going bad before anyone else! I hate joy! Mawh ha ha!" *
Back to the original topic: I think the honest answer is forty years of technological advancement and increased effects budgets. The in-universe excuse could be anything you want it to be. As a lover of visual pastiche, I would have enjoyed the bridge looking nearly identical to the one from TOS. But the idea that they would actually consider doing something so cheap and cheesy looking (by modern standards) for a 100 million dollar summer tent-pole action scifi movie, just to please a few trekkie purists is hilariously naive and insane.
*Ok, so it's not a nuanced portrayal.
I just object to some fans of this movie trying to paint all opposition as belonging to that kind of so easily ridiculed stereotype. If you don't care whether Star Fleet (and by extension Star Trek) should be worthy of respect, that's your affair.
Back (sort of) on topic: You may be right about using a near identical bridge to the original Enterprise in a modern movie, but in my opinion "updating" doesn't have to mean ripping everything out and replacing it with something completely different. I feel it should mean modernising the same basic theme. However in this case, at least it wasn't the dark miserable interior you get in some non-TOS Trek so
.
Last edited:
No more so than any other battle-oriented Trek film, such as The Wrath of Khan.
And how exactly does preventing Nero from destroying the Federation flout the goal of keeping the peace?
Ah, the tired old "no plot" myth, dusted off once again. This just means that you didn't approve of what it was about, but as usual this becomes spun into hyperbolic nonsense.
They don't go that deep. In fact, when the "little plotholes" are cross-referenced against preexisting canon ( TOS, etc. ) they turn out to not really be plotholes at all.
We just saw how important such values were to the four star fleet personnel that beat up Kirk way past his ability to resist. What would have happened if Pike hadn’t "luckily" shown up? No one was listening to Uhura. Yet we are left to assume some sort of corrective action was taken while what we actually see are the same guys on the shuttle the next day with Kirk. A 30 second scene would have fixed that. Talking about Star Fleet putting its money where its mouth is. And twice we get scenes where everyone just stands around while Kirk gets dealt to. Great values they have in this brave new universe. Looks more like the early 21st Century to me.
My compliant is with the writers. They tell us how important the peacekeeping and humanitarian goals of Star Fleet are supposed to be and then give us a movie that is largely death and destruction. If they had left out that line it would have made no difference. It seemed incongruous to me. Wouldn't be so bad if the characters at least made "real" humanitarian gestures when they got the chance.
There's a nice little dig at the rather strange notion of Vulcan racism, but apart from that there wasn't much to approve or disapprove of. If it was "about" something I didn't like I would tell you.
Not sure what you are referring to. An example would be nice.
To me the movie seemed little more than a series of clichés held together by a string of coincidences. I mean it was so implausible the writers had to claim the actual universe was trying to repair itself?! But I'm not "complaining" on that score, just putting the record straight lest someone get the wrong idea (presumably someone who hasn't seen it.).
A scat between cadets at a bar has nothing to do with Starfleet's ability to uphold peaceful and humanitarian values.
We saw what happened with Picard.
What makes you think that there aren't going to be scuffles in the 23rd century? We're all human after all. "Trouble With Tribbles?" "Tapestry?"
Yes, it's a Star Trek film after all.
What about Pike's offer of peaceful negotiations with Nero? Or Starfleet warping half its fleet to Vulcan under a distress call? Kirk even offered to help Nero! (But of course it will be thrown back up that he finished of Nero after Nero refused.)
Why don't you provide the examples for us first?
Most Star Trek is, big deal.
A what? He could have killed Kirk (short movie though I guess). How they deal with "small" matters on their own doorstep is a good indication of their larger scale values and imperatives, platitudes aside. Either that or they are incompetent idiots or hypocrites, or both. Not being able, or seen, to deal with out of control, undisciplined thugs in their own ranks isn't exactly inspiring. It wouldn’t have take much to fix such problems, so it’s hard to see why you and other apologists, wouldn’t agree they should have been corrected instead of taking the side of the indefensible? As I should have asked KingDaniel, how is this a good example for the younger set the film was apparently largely aimed at?
I never said there wouldn't be "scuffles" ("Euphemisms Are Us" have a good range don't they?) and I am aware of those examples. I suggest the differing circumstances and motivations involved should be considered, rather than just assuming all bar fights are the same. For example, in neither of those situations do Star Fleet personal gang up on inferior opposition and keep beating them when they aren’t resisting.
Since Vulcan is a Federation member that's more an obligation that humanitarian but OK.
And why wouldn’t it be? I take your point about Pike's offer of peaceful negotiations but it's easy to favour humanitarian goals when you are in a losing position! It’s how you react in victory that shows your true character in this regard I believe. Yes, I know it’s not what we would consider "natural". Sometimes showing a "different way" is the point of SF and in particular ST (unless it’s just a popcorn flick I suppose).
You seriously think that’s necessary?
As you know I already did provide a minor one when I asked what would happen if Pike hadn’t shown up. My comment about the self repairing universe wasn't a hint? Anyway it seemed Set Harth was aware of what I was talking about even if he and others disagree about their relative size. I asked for an example because I am unfamiliar with his "cross-referenced against pre-existing canon" technique for removing plot holes. It sounds like an inventive solution with numerous applications. 
But if you really need a few examples:
- The whole galaxy destroying supernova combined with how a blackhole is supposed to solve the problem.
- Then inadvertently transporting ships back in time when necessary, but destroying things otherwise. Gotta love that red stuff!
- Spock and Nero ending up in the same new universe (still implausible in my view).
- Kirk getting thrown off the Enterprise (instead of being put in the brig) because that was the only way to get the info to save the day.
- Implausibility of Kirk surviving Monsters only to somehow meet up with Spock Prime and Scotty.
- The Transwarp beaming, rabbit out of a hat, thing.
- Kirk failing to support Spock, not because the Earth needed saving, but to end up in the captain’s seat (plot structure showing through if nothing else). Etc.
Feel free to add your own. I’m guessing you agree with other apologists that these aren’t really big plot holes and even if they are, other ST movies all had at least twice as many and they were ten times the size!
I think this outing exceeds others by an order of magnitude but given the largely successful attempt to charm fans, most of the clichés at least are understandable.
He could have, he also may not have. It didn't happen in any event.
It isn't.
I never said they shouldn't have been corrected.
I think only you are interpreting it this way. I very seriously doubt this was foremost on anyone's mind.
A bar fight is a bar fight. What prompted all of them were stupid reasons as with any bar fight.
What it shows is Starfleet officers getting drunk and starting fights, period (well in "The Trouble with Tribbles" at least.)
When Earth was in trouble how often did Starfleet go it alone? Seems other Federation members didn't always uphold their "obligations." It's humanitarian.
It's humanitarian. Your examples that Starfleet can not uphold humanitarian and peacekeeping values was based your implication from a bar fight, and then are dismissing the things that they actually were shown to do.
If Kirk would have seriously been hurt or not is not a plot hole. It's speculation.
Well you're guessing right, because none of those actually were plot holes. A plot hole might be, for example, the line in the first scene where the officer says "10 seconds (or whatever amount of time it was) until visual range" when the Kelvin was right in front of the rift. It's something that goes against what was already established previously in the film. "The transwarp beaming" thing or the likelihood of Kirk bumping in to Scotty on Delta Vega, for example, are not plot holes.
You mean its likely to have world peace if most individual people in each county are violently nationalistic as they were early last century?
Great, would you care to say what you believe should happen?
You are probably right. Such gratuitous violence is just too common for a movie to risk taking a stand I guess.
I believe in your own example "Tapestry" it was supposed to be about loyalty and honour, although starting a fight with Nausicaans was clearly stupid.
In any event you are ignoring obvious and significant differences. Surely you wouldn't claim the fight in The Trouble with Tribbles as is the same in every important respect to the one in STXI?If other Federation members never helped each other out your point would have more weight. Why be part of it then? This movie says it's a peacekeeping organisation which presumably includes defending fellow members? I said "OK" because I accept it’s more debateable than I originally thought.
They are also based, as you point out, on what Kirk and Spock did to Nero and one or two other disquieting issues. I accept your points cast doubt on a black or white view, but this version of Star Fleet clearly has our morality, not the one we have come expect from Star Trek, which is my central point.
Your view of plot holes seems a little narrow.
Definitions I have found include:
A plot hole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
… a plot hole [is] when something happens during the story that seems highly unlikely, or would be impossible to imitate in real life. If a bank robber's car is being chased by five or six police cruisers, and the bank robber successfully evades capture simply by making a left turn down a dark alley, this is seen as a plot hole.
Or even: A rough spot in a storyline; a storyline that doesn't quite work, like a pothole is to a road.
"Plot holes" still seems to cover my examples.
Nothing even compares to that here.
No, because it's an unimportant issue regarding an unimportant character.
I would. A bar fight is a bar fight. In the "Tribbles" episode it was even done for comedic purposes! No "heavy lesson" learned. Even the confining to quarters was all done very lightly and for comedic purposes. I can assure you that particular scene after the fight wasn't written there to teach us all a valuable lesson.
I didn't say they never did. I said they didn't always uphold their end of the bargain.
Yes. As they attempted to with Vulcan.
Based on a bar fight that involved Kirk and Kirk firing on the Narada?
Then ask yourself what was impossible, illogical, or happened for no apparent reason in those "plot-canyon" examples? Some of the examples you cited are actually just questioning the science (and the red matter one was even touched on as to why it acted the way it does on the bridge scene.) Otherwise you're going off a very broad interpretation and will find yourself with all sorts of "plot canyons" about every 10 minutes for the past 40+ years of Star Trek if you are going to use that interpretation fairly.
Similar threads
